Lea Duesterwald (Carnegie Mellon University), Ian Yang (Carnegie Mellon University), Norman Sadeh (Carnegie Mellon University)

Human actions or lack thereof contribute to a large majority of cybersecurity incidents. Traditionally, when looking for advice on cybersecurity questions, people have turned to search engines or social sites like Reddit. The rapid adoption of chatbot technologies is offering a potentially more direct way of getting similar advice. Initial research suggests, however, that while chatbot answers to common cybersecurity questions tend to be fairly accurate, they may not be very effective as they often fall short on other desired qualities such as understandability, actionability, or motivational power. Research in this area thus far has been limited to the evaluation by researchers themselves on a small number of synthetic questions. This article reports on what we believe to be the first in situ evaluation of a cybersecurity Question Answering (QA) assistant. We also evaluate a prompt engineered to help the cybersecurity QA assistant generate more effective answers. The study involved a 10-day deployment of a cybersecurity QA assistant in the form of a Chrome extension. Collectively, participants (N=51) evaluated answers generated by the assistant to over 1,000 cybersecurity questions they submitted as part of their regular day-to-day activities. The results suggest that a majority of participants found the assistant useful and often took actions based on the answers they received. In particular, the study indicates that prompting successfully improved the effectiveness of answers and, in particular, the likelihood that users follow their recommendations (fraction of participants who actually followed the advice was 0.514 with prompting vs. 0.402 without prompting, p=4.61E-04), an impact on people’s actual behavior. We provide a detailed analysis of data collected in this study, discuss their implications, and outline next steps in the development and deployment of effective cybersecurity QA assistants that offer the promise of changing actual user behavior and of reducing human-related security incidents.

View More Papers

Replication: Do We Snooze If We Can't Lose? Modelling...

Karoline Busse (University of Bonn); Dominik Wermke (Leibniz University Hannover); Sabrina Amft (University of Bonn); Sascha Fahl (Leibniz University Hannover); Emanuel von Zezschwitz, Matthew Smith (University of Bonn)

Read More

Statically Discover Cross-Entry Use-After-Free Vulnerabilities in the Linux Kernel

Hang Zhang (Indiana University Bloomington), Jangha Kim (The Affiliated Institute of ETRI, ROK), Chuhong Yuan (Georgia Institute of Technology), Zhiyun Qian (University of California, Riverside), Taesoo Kim (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Read More

Crosstalk-induced Side Channel Threats in Multi-Tenant NISQ Computers

Ruixuan Li (Choudhury), Chaithanya Naik Mude (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Sanjay Das (The University of Texas at Dallas), Preetham Chandra Tikkireddi (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Swamit Tannu (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Kanad Basu (University of Texas at Dallas)

Read More

Rediscovering Method Confusion in Proposed Security Fixes for Bluetooth

Maximilian von Tschirschnitz (Technical University of Munich), Ludwig Peuckert (Technical University of Munich), Moritz Buhl (Technical University of Munich), Jens Grossklags (Technical University of Munich)

Read More